August 28, 2012

Warning, lots of large photos of breasts at the link, which I recommend not for the usual gawking at breasts, but for the careful contemplation of the expression and demeanor of the various women. The pictures tell a story, and each woman is different — not just in the size and shape of her breasts — but in her attitude about joining this demonstration... and the way that attitude evolves as the demonstration progresses and as the various women perceive the differences in breasts and attitudes of the other women. There are some men too... and onlookers taking all the photographs they want, which is part of the evolving scene. It's humanity at its most hilarious. Highly recommended!

I clciked on that link in the spirit of serious citizen journalism. Not gawking. Nosiree boob, er I mean bob. I am proud of these young women for getting out front on this issue, making a clean breast and getting it off their chest.

I think I need to go back and not gawk at that redhead again (I wonder why she shows up in so many of the pictures?)

"Hey Delilah, we're going to have a protest for topless equality. You should come!""What is topless equality? One of your political things?""You know how guys can go shirtless? Well, women should be able to do that too. That's what we want to say with our protest.""So if I go, I can walk around in public topless?!""Absolutely! That's the point.""Sweet! I am so there!"

That was interesting. The change in the three women in the first picture was fascinating. There's the one who seems far more interested in provocation rather than just being. She doesn't actually seem to have any friends.

Then there's the one with feathered earrings who starts out happy and comfortable but then drops back and eventually becomes clearly annoyed by how the protest is going. Her hands-in-her-pockets shirt says it all. I like the reassuring pat that her long-haired male friend later gives her.

I don't know much about the Raelian Movement and so don't know who is a more representative member.

34-38-38--what a winning hand! She's a brick house, she's mighty mightyAnd she's lettin' it all hang out and she's a brick house.

Doo doo doo, be doo dooo.

And yeah, Gingerbreasts totally knows she's hot shit. Was she a plant? She's Dodge Different. Slap those photos in an edition of Highlights under the heading, "Which of these does not belong?" Here's a hint, youngsters: it's the one who's shaved and voluptuous. If I saw that tidal wave of titty terror coming after me, I'd run away--until I saw Gingerbreasts. Then I'd be like, "Oh, ok. At least there's something to look at."

Oh, and then there's the Golden Girls, where Rose says to Blanche, "Something like this sure makes your breasts seem rather small." LOL! I'm going to watch that tonight. Lovely.

The red head seemed the most confident of the protesters I cared to look at. But notice her outfit: It is an elastic fabric which allows her to expose her breasts or hide them quickly. Maybe she had a lot less confidence when she contemplated the protest. Once she was exposed, she ended up feeling very comfortable with it.

Gingerbreasts probably doesn't give two shits about topless equality. She was probably on her way to work (who would wear that ensemble to a protest? And those shoes!) and needed a quick ego-boost, so she decided to join the group of 4's and 5's for the last three blocks of her commute and stick out like a sore thumb as the only 9.

-Exploiting stupid women.-Enticing women into parading around naked, then photographing them to promote a political agenda.-Trivializing "women's" issues.-Assuming that certain issues are womany but others are not.-To say nothing about the way that Democrat leaders treat their wives and girlfriends. Over and over again. And teenaged girls they meet on Twitter.This "War on Women" is just another instance of progressive Democrats projecting their own "issues" onto others.(Kind of like Chris Matthews calling Newtie racist. Gawd I miss Newt.)

As a libertarian-leaning conservative I have no objection to topless women in public. People can wear or not wear whatever they want. It's a pleasant surprise that the girls are nicer looking than in most topless protests. Particularly the chick with the glasses.

I am also of the opinion that the red-headed woman featured at the front of this meager protest has altered boobs. Some of the best plastic surgery I have seen, but fake nonetheless.

When I lived in Madison I probably saw 5-6 protests of this nature. Except that the women who were marching (twirling their "Room of One's Own" t-shirts and chanting) were morbidly obese and sagged badly.

I don't see a problem with women going topless in public, but I don't see why they'd necessarily want to: Men will look at just about any set of boobs: big, small, attractive, unattractive. It's the women who are judgmental, and from the photos it's clear that some of the women feel it. Allowing the public display of lots of different breasts might make them largely invisible to judgment, but isn't that the current state of affairs?

Willing to wager that if you told a gaggle of men that there was a naked woman with D cups standing in the window on the 5th floor you would get a fair number who would jump from the roof to get a glimpse.

Lindsey Meadows said...Willing to wager that if you told a gaggle of men that there was a naked woman with D cups standing in the window on the 5th floor you would get a fair number who would jump from the roof to get a glimpse.

P.s that redhead is clearly enjoying the fact that she is getting so much attention as by far the most attractive chick there. Her ego is expanding at an exponential rate. She's not doing this to protest anymore---she's doing this because she enjoys the oogling! (ah, to be the snipers on the white house roof, with their super-powered scopes to see this even closer...)

Reminds me of when a slightly pretty chick shows up at a comic/sci fi book conventions or metal show or some other event where the ratio is well off and the guys aren't the guys who normally don't go on a lot of dates. You'll see those girls dressed in amazingly revealing outfits, even though normally they're quite conservative dress-wise---it's because they're getting very off on being the prettiest girl with lots of attention for the first time in their lives.

There's a documentary on the Insane Clown Posse's fans I watched, most of whom are poor whites males. There was a slightly pretty girl who showed up and clearly only followed ICP and went to concerts because there she got to be queen of the world.

In other words, this redhead is not protesting the double-standard. She's loving it!

Raelianism is a polytheistic, sexuality-focused cult who believe that all life on Earth was genetically engineered by superior extra-terrestrials.

Don't say "cult" around here, dude - it's been outlawed as "bigotry" since Romney got in, instead of cultism being outlawed to keep Romney out. Call them a religion and you'll get along fine around here.

Go figure.

But, you're right - They ARE Raelians! (I missed the small print on the banner - they're learning) What do you know?

I'll go out on a limb here: The redhead is no casual protester. She is pro of come sort,probably the stripper variety. Somebody with time on their hands Google her pic. Don't get me wrong, they were absolutely right to put them, er, her, out front.

How any fucking supposedly-educated adult could be so stuck on maintaining a brain of swiss cheese they actually think (after every example from the Manson Family to these sex quacks) that there's only one way for these cult monsters to create that 'vale of tears' and, if that way isn't immediately apparent - BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK - rather than clicking on the links provided above, filled with the real "unpleasant facts," you try to assume a morally superior demeanor supported only by the depth of your ignorance.

Crack wrote:Don't say "cult" around here, dude - it's been outlawed as "bigotry" since Romney got in, instead of cultism being outlawed to keep Romney out. Call them a religion and you'll get along fine around here.

How are you proposing to "outlaw cultism". Are you going to throw Raelins in jail for believing in UFO's?

Crack wrote:Well then, it's a good thing nobody's doing that, because we're mocking a bunch of sleazy U.F.O.-obsessed ho-bags who will stoop to any level, including trying to indoctrinate kids behind their parent's back. Now let me tell you what I don't understand:

According to your link, it's not the Raelians trying to indoctrinate kids, but a school in Canada, trying to teach that all religions are the same. Not to say that Raelians have never indoctrinated, only you are pegging the Raelians for soemthing that they didn't do sinply because they are a "cult". And how do you prevent indocrtrination. Some young girl might go to one of these rallies and hear that we are actually aliens from one of these crackpots. Raelians are allowed to espouse such views (as are buddhists, tarot card readers, mormons, atheists) and the young impressionable girl might say "wow, that's pretty interesting. Maybe your're on to something there". or she might say "you're a nut. Get out of my face, hoe bag". But she is entitled to believe things you don't even if most other people believe it's not true.

Oh man, thanks - really - I needed that. First of all a cult is NOT just a religious organization. (I can now see why I have so many problems with you - you don't know the subject matter.) Cults today come in all shapes, sizes and concerns. Here's Deborah Layton of The People's Temple:

"...Nobody joins a cult. You join a self-help group, a religious movement, a political organization. They change so gradually, by the time you realize you're entrapped - and almost everybody does - you can't figure a safe way back out...."

I'm not going to go into what it's all about - only to point out it was she who promoted the "The Secret" right before she brought us Obama - because here's what's important:

“When she phoned, [Obama] dropped everything and took her call. They huddled over strategy. Of all of Obama’s unofficial White House advisers, Oprah had unparalleled access, input, influence, and power.”

And it was all facilitated because ignoramuses like you refused to understand that which you didn't want to believe, and will attack anyone who does in it's defense.

Ha ha ha! First picture: 3 women with breasts bared, 1 is a babe, the other two add up to about a 3 on the 10 scale. And all the rest are a bunch of men. Ugly ones. Oh, and one woman with a top on. What's up with her? How moronic do you have to be to attend a topless rally with a top on?

In some Mormon circles one does hear bitter accusations of “lying for the Lord,” and sometimes one does witness among Mormon people today the remnants of a deep-seated sense that telling a complete, straightforward story is not always good for LDS interests.

And you're putting that ideology in charge of the country - without an investigation of any kind - and I'm supposed to be quiet about it?

Crack Emcee wrote:Oh, so your punk ass isn't denying I'm right, you just want to act like I'm wrong over a technicality - right, you scumbag?

I didn't pull up EVERY WEBPAGE POSSIBLE?

The link you included was not specific to Raelians indoctrinating people. Are you right? Well, I suppose since people are Raelians they have to be told about it, so there must have been someone explaining what it means to them and them then agreeing with it. But that's not the Canadian school board teaching kids about the universality of religion.

Raelians are allowed to tell people about their religion/cult. And people are allowed to believe in it. There is no definitive way to disprove their beliefs, but certainly one can be skeptical of it. People have a right to believe in crazy shit. Because, it's not crazy to them (though I agree Raelianism does apepar to be whacky from my perspective). There is no way you could stamp out belief in cultism any more than you can force people to be conservative.

The annual Go-Topless Day was established in 2007 by a former sports car journalist called Rael, who founded a religion called the Raelian Movement after he said he was visited by a space alien in a French volcano park who told him life on Earth was created by extraterrestrial scientists, according to an account on his website.

Occasional references to alien creators did not seem to register with the crowd, which focused mostly on the breasts.

Look Cracky One Note,Our choice is between "God DAMN America" and The cult of Mormanism. I just don't see the huge difference you apparently do and I am going to vote for the guy who bankrupts the country slower.

Crack wrote:The link you included was not specific to Raelians indoctrinating people. Are you right? Well, I suppose,...

You're a fucking weasel, jr,...

Again, you seem to think that the only perspective on Raelism is your own, and that somehow you can force people to not believe it.If you are Raelian you believe in aliens. Thus your indoctrination, is you telling the truth to others. If you believe it, then there's nothing sinister about you spreading the word, any more than there is about a Jehova's Witness spreading the word about their religion/cult. Raelians and Jehova's witnesses are allowed to tell people about their religions/cults. And you are allowed to tell them to get bent (or agree with the principles).I think most people, when faced with a Raelian's perspective would crack up at the absurdity of it (and I'd recommend the following movie to them: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/)And for those that fall for it, what are you going to do? People are allowed to believe in Raelism, new ageism, Reiki, whatever. It doesn't mean that they are therefore joining a cult (there is no such thing as an actual Cult of Oprah for example). If Canadian schools are forcing kids to attend Raelism classes as part of their education that's an indoctrination I would find troublesome (though again, the link you cited was not really about Raelins at all). However, if Raelins are able to talk to people about their beliefs in the world, absent govt compulsion, they have that right.

Look Cracky One Note,Our choice is between "God DAMN America" and The cult of Mormanism. I just don't see the huge difference you apparently do and I am going to vote for the guy who bankrupts the country slower.

Bullshit. Not only are there other candidates but there's also not voting, so you tell a lie on it's face. Now you look:

You guys are the ones who keep picking the wrong people, to do the wrong things, and then insisting I have to follow your lead to be right with you. Well, fuck you:

Crack Emcee wrote:Nobody said shit about forcing anyone to do anything - the country is swinging to the right, right now, without anybody forcing them to - because THE FACTS are forcing them to make a decision.

So there IS A WAY to stamp out beliefs without force.

That's garbage. Many people wont vote for Obama because they are disillusioned with Obama. That doesn't mean that they've become conservative (you're conservative and you're not voting for the conservative in the race for example).Andy will still be andy. Allie Oop will still be Allie Oop etc.

And you might even have Raelians/new agers who are also fiscal conservatives. Believing in one doesn't preclude beleving in the other necessarily.

I'm not a Raelian, so I am not defending the belief. However, where is your evidence that it's not true?

As per the founder of Raelism, On December 13, 1973, Claude Vorilhon experienced an alien abduction by the Elohim, who renamed him Rael and instructed him to act as their prophet. Yahweh is the name of the specific Elohim with him Rael was in contact. He held his first public conference on his revelations on September 19, 1974.

He says he was abducted by aliens. Disprove that. His is not the first alien abduction story we've ever heard of. Perhaps teh Elohim are abducting people, giving them anal probes and revealing the truth about our origins to a select few. You weren't abducted, therefore you're not one of the chosen. As such, you simply wont understand.

Raelism will satisfy the belief of those who don't think the Big Bang explains it all, and who think there is extra terrestrial life outiside of hte earth. Maybe the Elohim terraformed the world. IT makes about as much sense as a random explosion creating life as we know it. None of us can go back to the founding of life on earth, so such questoins are largely not going to be PROVED. As a skeptic of Raelism and ET's in general, I can certainly say I dont believe it personally, nor have I ever been abducted by aliens.

chickelit ... dang, I think you are right. The New York redhead appears considerably older, in other photos of her, than the DC redhead. Neck and arms are distinctly different. Hair & face is easily modified day to day, neck and arm wrinkles/sags not so much. The New York redhead is "activist" Karen Heaven ... of Gotopless dot org, coincidently connected to the sponsoring Raelian Movement ...same as the DC group.

Besides how had is Raelism really? They seem like they worship uninhibited sex. If I was in the mind to have a pornstar type relationship a Raelian might be just the person to have that relationship with. She can regale me all she wants with her takes of the elihohim while I bone her and in addition to getting sexual relief you can also get some comic relief, or in any case stories to tell when you get older. If Raelism leads to more women walking around topless, then all praise Raelism.

The funny thing is the irony of Crack trying to start a cult of his own anti-cultists but failing in agony because Crack doesn't know jack squat about cults.

I know enough not to vote for a member of one that says "telling a complete, straightforward story is not always good for LDS interests."

You be the fool, and when it all comes apart, I'm going to enjoy having had this little time together because NONE OF YOU will be able to forget it was I and I alone who not only told you, but tried to get you to stop being fools.

I was being semi facetious and in fact looking on the bright side of Raelism. Hey, if your girlfriend is into that she's probably a superfreak in the bedroom. Thats one of the positive by products of Raelism. Women often complain that guys don't listen to them. Well, it could certainly be true of a Raelist gf.THere's no reason you actulaly have to listen to her Elohim viewpoint.Just zone that out and think of naked breasts.

In 2005, two Wired News reporters were welcomed into a Raëlian seminar and had permission to videotape it. They believe the footage they took makes it clear that the Raelian Movement is a cult which should disband. A Raëlian guide said in a Wired interview that he is not ashamed of what is shown and that he has no concerns about this incident.[143][144]

The estranged former wife of Vorilhon characterised him as a 'cult leader' and claimed he brought groups of female Raëlians home and held orgies which affected the children from an early age.Sounds like if you're in the mood for a good orgy, Raelism is the religion to be in. Maybe the wife was a puritanical christian and just didn't get the whole group sex thing. I can imagine a lot of guys especially going along with the whole alien crap just so they can get in some womens pants.

I'm pretty sure that calling people names and ridiculing them is not a very good way.

Yes, but you're not thinking long-term, as I am. As I said, NOBODY is going to forget this. They'll forget jr565's weasel dodges, the passive put-downs of the others, etc., but NO ONE is going to forget what I've said here.

Like I said, I've been proven right often enough that I can have a thick skin about the approach of these guys - see my talk with Pastafarian from just a few days ago - but what is going to be these guys' defense? They don't and won't have one, because they're just talking - they have absolutely NOTHING to back up their claims. They don't do the research, for some reason, but just defend,...NOTHING. It's just talk.

Hear that, Fools? You may have supported Newt, or Gary Johnson, or Herman Cain, or Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum, or Michele Bachman, or maybe you even supported that Mormon, no the other one, the Democrat. Doesn't matter. Romney (now the official candidate by delegate count) is still ALL YOUR FAULT and everything he does wrong will be ALL YOUR FAULT. Because I told you so. Fools.

" I'm going to enjoy having had this little time together because NONE OF YOU will be able to forget it was I and I alone who not only told you, but tried to get you to stop being fools."

No, we won't be able to forget your great prophetic wisdom, mainly because you keep coming around and ranting about it and you don't seem to have an "off" button or even a "volume" button. It's all very Biblical, really.

The redhead carries herself with professional aplomb. She has clearly been naked in front of strangers before. Paradoxically that aplomb is a bit of a turn off. Nakedness implies vulnerability which, in turn, implies intimacy. That redhead wears her breasts like armor. There's something that's more aggressive than seducive in their baring.

Crack Emcee wrote:When I lived in San Francisco, I used to go to Silicon Valley a lot, and they drummed one idea into my head really, really well:

Everything loses 80% of it's value once it hits the web, so give 160.

How do you know they weren't trying to brainwash you into cultism? Is what they say objectively true all the time? Is that a "fact" or an opinion. Is it really true that exactly 80% of everaything loses its value once it hits the web (not 81%, not 79.365%)? Can you even give 160%? (I thought the most you can give is 100%)

Lindsay Meadows said: " Willing to wager that if you told a gaggle of men that there was a naked woman with D cups standing in the window on the 5th floor you would get a fair number who would jump from the roof to get a glimpse."

I'm willing to wager that if you told a gaggle of women there was a credit card on the sidewalk, you would get a fair number who would jump from the roof to grab it.

What is the percentage of the population that identify as Raelian? Sounds like they aren't doing too great a job of prostelytizing, nor are too many people reigned in. Just because a cult/religion gives you their spiel doens't mean that you have to then join the cult. Usually when the Jehova's Witnesses come knocking I politely tell them I have to go to work and close the door. Lo and behold, I'm not a jehova's witness. So why should I be fearful of the jehovas witnesses cult. Other than being a nuiscance they havne't done me harm.

I thought they might be real, but the last huge high rez photo of her boobs shows a very distinct scar across the nipple. But who knows, maybe she was running naked through the woods at her last solstice gathering and slashed her nipple on some thorny underbrush. (Don't y'all start scrolling at once now...) The amazon woman's (pink hair) are real.

Willing to wager that if you told a gaggle of men that there was a naked woman with D cups standing in the window on the 5th floor you would get a fair number who would jump from the roof to get a glimpse.

No. We'd cover you with wireless cameras, attach a rope to your ankles and lower you to the appropriate window. The right tool for the job, don't you know.

The redhead carries herself with professional aplomb. She has clearly been naked in front of strangers before. Paradoxically that aplomb is a bit of a turn off. Nakedness implies vulnerability which, in turn, implies intimacy. That redhead wears her breasts like armor. There's something that's more aggressive than seducive in their baring.

(First, I'll admit that I'd love to look like her.)

William, you kind of nailed what was percolating in my head about these images and the protest, I think. It has to do with my dad telling me when I was a teenager sporting a pretty revealing halter top, "Honey, you're beautiful. Leave a little to the imagination."

Crack wrote:Yes, but you're not thinking long-term, as I am. As I said, NOBODY is going to forget this. They'll forget jr565's weasel dodges, the passive put-downs of the others, etc., but NO ONE is going to forget what I've said here.

Like I said, I've been proven right often enough that I can have a thick skin about the approach of these guys - see my talk with Pastafarian from just a few days ago - but what is going to be these guys' defense? They don't and won't have one, because they're just talking - they have absolutely NOTHING to back up their claims. They don't do the research, for some reason, but just defend,...NOTHING. It's just talk.

You're arguing against mormonism and cultism/new age in the abstract, and we're arguing about the actual record of Romney up till now. Your research doens't seem to match ours, or mine at any rate. You are simply pulling stuff out of your ass. If Romney is inaugurated and immediately makes it a law to become a mormon I will eat plenty of crow. Yet, Santorum seems like a far more religious person who would rule from a purely christian perspective and you seem ok with that. I am not necessarily against Santorum either, though I do wonder why the disconnect. And frankly while I am not a mormon, it doesn't mean that you aren't turning Romney into a caricature of your warped view of mormonism. Romney ran Massachusets, his father was similarly a governor. And though they were both mormons, and his father wore his religion far more visibly on his sleeve, neither was a religious extremist when it came to governance. So I simply don't see the horror that you are envisionsing.Further, you keep linking mormonism to New Age. It is not related. New Age religions do not have a christian god as their source.

If Romney is inaugurated and immediately makes it a law to become a mormon I will eat plenty of crow.

jr, not only have I never even suggested that's a remote possibility, but the fact you'd do so shows what an immature, comic book image you have of the whole topic. After reading that, I'm seriously considering going back to ignoring you because, clearly, you're not even remotely a serious person (which explains why I always find you in a mob-scene gangbang with the likes of AllieOoop and Fen).

I mean, how exactly would that work? "A law to become a mormon"? It's your idea, not mine, so give it go so I can evaluate the possibility.